Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.
A.B.K.Prasad and another – Appellants
Versus
The Union of India And others - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation Nos.135 and 161 of 2012
Decided on : 11-09-2024
(A) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 5 – Public Interest Litigation – Petitioners sought CBI investigation into land transactions by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh with a private company, alleging irregularities and lack of transparency. The court found no merit in the petitions, citing previous rulings and the principle of finality in litigation. (Paras 2, 12, 50)
(B) Public Interest Litigation – The court emphasized that public interest litigations must be genuine and not motivated by personal or political agendas. The petitions were dismissed due to delay and laches, and the petitioners' lack of clean hands. (Paras 46, 50)
(C) Previous Litigation – The court noted that similar issues had been adjudicated in prior public interest litigations, which had attained finality, thus barring the current petitions. (Paras 31, 50)
Facts of the case: The petitioners alleged that the Government of Andhra Pradesh entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with a private company for land at low prices, seeking CBI investigation. The court found that the previous litigation on similar grounds had been dismissed.
Findings of Court: The court ruled that the petitions were not maintainable due to previous judgments and the delay in filing.
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the petitions, the need for a CBI investigation, and the implications of previous rulings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that public interest litigations must be bona fide and that previous judgments on similar issues bind the parties.
Result: The petitions were dismissed.
ORDER :
(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.Raghunatha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012.
Mr. Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012.
Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents No.1, 3 and 6 in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 and for respondent No.1 in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012.
Ms. Divya Adepu, learned Special Government Pleader for respondent No.2 in both the petitions.
Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation for respondent No.4 in both the petitions.
Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in both the petitions.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent No.7 in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 and respondent No.6 in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as, “the newly impleaded respondent”).
2. In P.I.L.No.135 of 2012, the petitioners seek a direction to the Union of India to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, extending the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to the subject matter covered by G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 13.12.2006 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners also seek a direction to the CBI to take up the consequential investigation into the subject matter of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)/Sale/Agreement of lands done at unconscionably low prices and in a non-transparent manner entered into by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh with M/s.IMG Bharata Academies Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’). The petitioners further seek a direction to direct the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to exercise the power of superintendence in the investigation conducted by the CBI.
3. In P.I.L.No.161 of 2012, the petitioner seeks a direction to CBI to conduct investigation into the subject matter of Memorandum of Understanding/Sale/Agreement of lands done at unconscionably low prices and in a non- transparent manner entered into by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh with the Company and to prosecute the culprits based on the investigation.
(i) ANTECEDENTS OF PETITIONERS:
4. The petitioner No.1 in P.I.L.No.135 of 2012 is the Founder Editor of Eenadu Newspaper of Telugu Vernacular News Daily in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and is a Journalist by profession and lives in an old age home. The petitioner No.2 in the said public interest litigation is a Chartered Accountant by profession since 1986. The petitioner No.2 at the time of filing the public interest litigation was lodged in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, in connection with crime registered in R.C.No.19/2011 by CBI. It has been stated that the aforesaid criminal case pertains to an investigation into Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Group of Companies of which petitioner No.2 is an advisor. The petitioner No.2 is also the advisor to the family of late Sri Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy and belongs to the Congress Party. He is also a Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, from YSRCP, a political party in Andhra Pradesh which was founded by Mr. Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Y.S.Rajasekhara Reddy.
5. The petitioner in P.I.L.No.161 of 2012 is an Advocate practising in the Metropolitan Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, and other Courts. He got enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1988 and was General Secretary and President of the Metropolitan Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, during the years 1996 to 1998 and 2008-2009. He claims to be active in public life and filed several cases against corrupt officers which were referred to ACB for enquiry.
(ii) BACKGROUND FACTS:
6. Facts leading to filing of the public interest litigations briefly stated are that the Company was incorporated on 05
Public interest litigations must be genuine and not motivated by personal agendas; previous judgments on similar issues bind the parties, barring new petitions.
Public interest litigation must serve a genuine public cause; courts should not direct CBI investigations unless grave public interest and no alternative remedies exist.
Point of Law : Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice....
(1) Public Interest Litigations – What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is bona fide of petitioner who files PIL – It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be exam....
A challenge to a long-standing notification under the Muslim Wakfs Act after an undue delay is impermissible, reinforcing the finality of administrative actions.
It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of....
Point of law : . Merely because allegations are levelled against the Hon'ble Chief Minister and others and in as much as the allegations relate to abuse of power, it cannot be contended that the natu....
Public Interest Litigation requires genuine public interest and appropriate standing; repeated petitions without addressing prior judicial concerns are not maintainable.
Public interest litigants must have clean hands and credible credentials, and the courts must validate claims to prevent frivolous petitions, while retaining the sanctity of public interest litigatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
